Case Summaries
Legal Malpractice
[08/26]
Florida Bar v. Hall
In an attorney's disciplinary proceedings, arising from forgery and fraudulent recording of a lease agreement and agreement for sale between the attorney and property owners, a referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is approved in part and disapproved in part where: 1) referee's finding of fact, recommendations of guilt, and award of costs are affirmed; 2) referee's reliance on Standard 7.0 is disapproved and instead Standard 5.0 should be applied; and 3) referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is unsupported, as after considering the factual findings, the totality of misconduct, case law, and the Standards, disbarment is the appropriate sanction.
[06/25]
JUNG v. MUNDY, HOLT & MANCE, P.C.
Plaintiff's malpractice claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, because wrongful litigation brought by attorneys against a client constitutes a continuing tort.
[05/27]
ABASSI v. WELKE
The trial court may sua sponte entertain a second summary judgment motion following its denial of a previous summary judgment motion notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.
[05/26]
ABASSI v. WELKE
The trial court may sua sponte entertain a second summary judgment motion following its denial of a previous summary judgment motion notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.
[05/21]
KAEMPE v. MYERS
Plaintiff's claim for conversion of patent rights was properly dismissed because no such conveyance occurred. As he neglected to provide expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care, his legal malpractice claim fails as well.
[04/23]
VINER v. SWEET
Damages award is vastly reduced in light of the California Supreme Court's holding that a plaintiff in a transactional malpractice action must show that but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result.
[04/22]
AGUILAR v. LERNER
Once a client files a malpractice lawsuit against his or her former attorney, the client waives any rights under the mandatory fee arbitration act. Accordingly, the arbitration provisions of the retainer agreement were properly deemed enforceable.
[04/19]
ZAMOS v. STROUD
An attorney may be held liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause.
[04/16]
ROSEN CONSTR. VENTURES, INC. v. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C.
An adverse party's alleged breach of a contract is not necessarily sufficient to put a client on notice that his attorney negligently drafted the contract; a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the relevant date for statute of limitations purposes is the date plaintiff lost its breach of contract case against the adverse party. There is thus a genuine issue of fact regarding when plaintiff's malpractice claim accrued.
[04/05]
HARRIGFELD v. HANCOCK
In light of the Idaho Supreme Court's response to a question of law, plaintiffs lack standing to bring this legal malpractice action; dismissal is affirmed.
[03/05]
MIHAILOVICH v. LAATSCH
District court erred in excluding evidence of substantially similar accidents that had occurred at the S-curve in the years immediately before and after plaintiff's accident; a new trial is warranted. On remand, the admissibility of plaintiff's expert testimony should be freshly addressed.
[02/26]
AM. GUARANTEE & LIAB. INS. CO. v. KEITER
Plaintiff has a duty to defend defendant in the underlying state court suit alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, despite the "business enterprise" exclusion in its professional liability insurance policy. Under Maine law, defendant had no beneficial interest arising from his wife's ownership of Rent-A-Husband shares, issued to her in exchange for his legal representation of Rent-A-Husband.
[02/03]
ADCO OIL CO. v. ROVELL
Because plaintiff assigned both its intellectual property and its interest in the underlying litigation to Hugoton Joint Venture 1986 (HJV), its only interest in any legal malpractice proceeding against HJV's lawyer is derivative. Only HJV could vindicate the interest of the partnership as a whole, and the time to do so expired years ago.
[01/20]
MUNGO v. TAYLOR
District court did not err in reversing the bankruptcy court decision deeming plaintiff to be a prevailing party on the legal malpractice claim brought against her former divorce attorney, while affirming the bankruptcy court's judgment on all other grounds.
[01/12]
GOLD v. WEISSMAN
Plaintiff's malpractice complaint against her former attorney is not time-barred. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, the one-year statute was tolled for as long as the attorney continued to represent his client in the same specific subject matter in which the negligence occurred.
